Contempt Beyond the Dock: Eleventh Circuit Confirms District Courts May Dismiss LHWCA Claims for Willful Non-Compliance and Declares Rule 5.1 Inapplicable to Federal Regulations

Introduction

In Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Albert Jackson, No. 24-12858 (11th Cir. July 31, 2025) (unpublished), the Eleventh Circuit addressed two doctrinally significant questions:

Whether a district court, acting under 33 U.S.C. § 927(b), may dismiss Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) claims as a contempt sanction when a claimant willfully disobeys orders issued by the Department of Labor’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) during the underlying administrative proceedings.
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1’s notice-and-certification mechanism for constitutional challenges to statutes extends to challenges against federal regulations.

The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Albert Jackson’s LHWCA claims for repeated non-compliance with ALJ discovery orders and upheld the striking of his “notice of constitutional challenge” to an OALJ regulation prohibiting recording of hearings. The decision strengthens judicial enforcement tools in LHWCA litigation and clarifies a gap in constitutional-challenge procedure.

Summary of the Judgment

Civil Contempt & Dismissal: The court held that under § 927(b) a district court may impose any sanction available for an in-court contempt, including dismissal with prejudice, where clear and convincing evidence shows the claimant’s willful disobedience of lawful, unambiguous ALJ orders.
Rule 5.1 Scope: Rule 5.1 applies solely to federal or state “statutes.” Because Jackson challenged a regulation (29 C.F.R. § 18.86), certification to the U.S. Attorney General was unnecessary and his notice was properly stricken.
Procedural Issues: The panel rejected Jackson’s additional arguments as either waived, abandoned, or raised for the first time on appeal.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The court wove together a line of Eleventh Circuit authority that frames both contempt power and dismissal sanctions:

Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2002) – sets “clear and convincing” standard for civil contempt.
Gratton v. Great Am. Communications, 178 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 1999) – confirms dismissal under Rule 41(b) for disobeying court order.
World Thrust Films, Inc. v. Int’l Family Ent., 41 F.3d 1454 (11th Cir. 1995) – two-part test for dismissal: pattern of contumacious conduct plus ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions.
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) – dismissal appropriate after forewarning.
Brown v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 893 F.2d 294 (11th Cir. 1990) – outlines compensability presumption under the LHWCA.
Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., 512 U.S. 92 (1994) – noted for LHWCA’s comprehensive remedial scheme.

These authorities provided the doctrinal scaffold for validating both the contempt finding and the dismissal sanction. By invoking Riccard and World Thrust Films, the panel confirmed that § 927(b) contempt mirrors ordinary civil contempt, and that dismissal, though extraordinary, was permissible given Jackson’s conduct.

B. Legal Reasoning

Validity of ALJ Orders. The ALJ’s directives—attending an employer-selected Independent Medical Examination (IME) and signing medical-release authorizations—flow directly from 33 U.S.C. §§ 907(d) and 927(a) plus 29 C.F.R. § 18.62. Hence, they were “valid and lawful.”
Clarity and Ability to Comply. Orders were explicit (dates, physician, location); Horizon agreed to reimburse travel. Jackson offered inconvenience, not inability, so element three of Riccard was satisfied.
Pattern of Contumacious Conduct. Jackson ignored multiple ALJ orders, skipped a discovery conference, and failed to appear at the district-court hearing—amounting to a “clear pattern” of willful disobedience.
Consideration of Lesser Sanctions. The district court expressly examined — and rejected as futile — monetary fines or issue preclusion, meeting World Thrust Films’ second prong.
Rule 5.1 Non-Applicability. Textually, Rule 5.1 references only “statutes.” The court applied ordinary canons (expressio unius) to hold that regulations are excluded, obviating certification under 28 U.S.C. § 2403.

C. Impact of the Judgment

Empowering ALJs and District Courts: By endorsing dismissal as a viable contempt sanction, the decision strengthens the enforcement architecture of LHWCA discovery, incentivising claimants to comply and discouraging obstructionism.
Administrative-Law Procedure: Clarifies the interplay between ALJ authority and Article III courts, signalling that district courts will zealously backstop ALJ orders rather than re-litigate them.
Rule 5.1 Limitation: Provides a clear circuit-level pronouncement that constitutional challenges to regulations fall outside Rule 5.1, guiding litigants to use other procedural vehicles (e.g., Administrative Procedure Act claims) or to seek intervention by the United States through separate notice.
Pro se Litigation Standards: Reinforces Eleventh Circuit precedent on abandonment and waiver, reminding self-represented parties of briefing obligations.
Potential Spill-Over: The reasoning is easily transposed to other federal benefits regimes employing ALJs (Black Lung Benefits, Energy Employees’ claims), making § 927(b) a blueprint for sanctioning discovery evasion in analogous contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

LHWCA. A federal workers-compensation scheme for maritime employees injured on navigable waters or adjoining areas (e.g., shipyards). It substitutes administrative benefits for tort suits.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). A neutral adjudicator within the Department of Labor who conducts trials, rules on evidence, and issues compensation decisions.
Civil Contempt. A court finding that a party violated a lawful order, aimed at coercing compliance or compensating the opposing side, not punishing past behavior (that would be criminal contempt).
Independent Medical Examination (IME). A non-treating physician’s evaluation requested by the employer to verify injury, causation, or disability.
Rule 5.1 Notice. A procedural step obligating parties to alert the government when they attack the constitutionality of a statute so the sovereign can intervene—limited here to statutes.
Dismissal with Prejudice. Termination of a claim such that it cannot be re-filed, an extreme but permissible sanction for serious litigation misconduct.

Conclusion

Horizon Shipbuilding v. Jackson crystallizes two important principles. First, 33 U.S.C. § 927(b) empowers district courts to wield the full contempt arsenal, including outright dismissal, against LHWCA claimants who flout ALJ discovery orders. Second, Federal Rule 5.1’s constitutional-question protocol is confined to statutes and does not extend to challenges against federal regulations, freeing district courts from the obligation to certify such questions to the Attorney General. The case thus not only vindicates judicial authority to enforce administrative-process integrity but also clarifies procedural boundaries for constitutional litigation. Future claimants—and counsel—should take heed: non-compliance with ALJ directives now carries the very real risk of irrevocable claim dismissal in the Eleventh Circuit.